On 12 Aug 2006 20:31:11 -0700, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in
<1155439871.507379.68970@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :

Augray wrote:

On 12 Aug 2006 11:54:58 -0700, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in
<1155408898.093498.15490@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> :

Augray wrote:

On 10 Aug 2006 18:54:58 -0700, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in
<1155261298.470859.281470@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> :

Augray wrote:

On 10 Aug 2006 09:07:32 -0700, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in
<1155226052.431077.293090@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :

Augray wrote:

On 9 Aug 2006 18:50:25 -0700, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in
<1155174625.098122.185960@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :

Augray wrote:

On 9 Aug 2006 16:23:45 -0700, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in
<1155165825.907616.55380@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :

alwaysaskingquestions wrote:

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1155158868.964805.47690@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

in another thread, somebody said:

"The problem is that you are assuming non-scientific beliefs are
predictive in some sense, that they are necessarily the result of a
rational inquiry, and that success can be measured in some quantitative
way."

if non-scientific beliefs are not predictive, not the result of
rational inquiry, and their success cannot be measured,

Which is exactly why they are not science.

then upon what
basis can one honestly maintain them?

Faith

what is faith? how does it work? how do you know that it leads to valid
conclusions?

I recommend a viewing of the movie "Contact"

neither the book nor the movie answer these questions.

I would argue that they do. How would your reactions be different from
Dr. Arroway's?

they perhaps attempt to answer the first question, but not the second
or the third. furthermore, in both the book and the movie, ellie's
experience is validated by evidence. in the movie, the headset records
several hours of static, and in the book, she discovers the hidden
message in pi that the aliens said she would find.

But what if there were no validation? Does that mean it didn't happen?

it means im not justified in believing it.

Why are you ignoring the question?

how does supplying an answer constitute ignoring?

But you didn't supply an answer. I asked if "no validation" was
equivalent to "it didn't happen". You responded with a statement about
justification. These are different ideas.

your question is based on a misrepresentation of me. i never said
anything about whether or not the events actually happened.

And that's precisely why I'm interested in the answer to the question.

i said
there is no justification to believe that they did.

That's irrelevant. Are you claiming that the reality of objects or
events is dependent upon your belief in them?

were i to experience something similar, i would certainly accept the
possibility that i hallucinated the whole thing. humans are not immune
to such things. in fact, i can show you several optical illusions that
would fool your mind. would you insist that what you see is really
there, or would you admit that the optical illusion is fooling you?

But what if it really did happen, and there has been no validation
*yet*?

it means im not justified in believing it until such validation
arrives.

So, if you had an experience like that of Dr. Arroway's, you wouldn't
believe it actually happened unless there was independent validation?

why would i? when you look at the lilac chaser optical illusion, do you
believe that the program is really outputting green?

But Arroway's experience isn't comparable to the lilac chaser optical
illusion. If you're going to take that route, you might as well
consider all of your experiences to be illusions. Hence, "independent
verification" is impossible.

in what way is it not comparable? you are trying to get me to say that
we (or she) should believe her story simply because she experienced it.

No, I'm trying to explain to you that the lilac chaser illusion is an
inappropriate analogy. You yourself believe that a lot of thing
happened to you that only you have witnessed.

well, you experience green when you look at the lilac chaser. its no
different. do you believe the program is outputting green to your
monitor or dont you?

Are you trying to tell me that what Arroway saw could be explained as
negative retinal afterimage?

i would also try to find the evidence hinted at in the experience. if i
hallucinate somebody telling me there is a message at some specific
place in pi, then i might be inclined to look for one. if i didnt find
one, i would admit that it was just an hallucination.

At what point do you give up looking for evidence?

if an alien specifically tells me where the message will be, then its
rather trivial to look. if the message isnt there, it isnt going to
ever be there.

And if you're not given any hints of where to look, what then?

then its not really evidence. the entire validity of the message in pi
is that it is supposed to show up far before it would be statistically
likely to by chance. since pi is a transcendental number, every message
is *somewhere* in pi. its just a matter of how statistically likely it
is to show up after n digits.

You misunderstand. What if you're simply not told where to look? I
wasn't implying that you had to look in pi. Please drop the fixation
with that number.

if youre not told where to look, then you are hallucinating. aliens
that are far more advanced than humans would not be so stupid.

Why do you presume to know the only possible motivations of aliens?

My question is: at what point do you stop looking for corroborating
evidence?

depends on how valuable (in my own opinion) the truth of the experience
is.

So it's possible that you might declare an experience to have been an
hallucination, where as a more "dedicated" person might eventually
discover the event to have been real?

but one thing i will never do is categorically declare it to be
true without evidence.

in fact, its entirely possible to not even care if its true. i dont
need an experience to be real to value it. i can extract value from the
creation story of genesis without believing in it.

What do you mean by "believing in it"? A literal reading, or a
metaphorical reading?

im sure most
psychadelic drug users value their experiences, even though they know
they are false. when people start claiming that zombies actually exist
because they saw zombies while on LSD, then im going to object to that.

Which would seem to be irrelevant to Arroway's experience.

if no hints are given as to where to look, then the experience is
obviously fake, because aliens that are far more advanced that humans
are would know damn well that pi contains all possible messages if you
look far enough.

what if i hallucinate something that is by its nature untestable, like
the undectable dragon in my garage? well then, i would probably commit
myself. if its undetectable, then i couldnt have detected it. the fact
that i think i did means im going crazy.

Or not.

or yes. we commit people all the time for things like this. oh, unless
the specter is named "god."

Hardly. Why is it that all those people who believe in UFOs aren't
locked away in the funny farm?

never heard of john nash, eh?

How is Nash relevant?

"we commit people all the time for things like this. oh, unless the
specter is named "god.""

do try to keep up.

Does John Nash believe in UFOs? Are you claiming that all believers in
UFOs should be locked away?

theists love to run around in circles describing what their beliefs
*aren't.* how about they start telling us what they *are?*